2016: Underway

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well that is the thing; Rand Paul is already on record espousing the benefits of misinformation and citing an instance in which he spread misinformation and used it to his advantage. So Paul’s own words condemn his integrity. He doesn’t need a bunch of hackers and haters to do that.

"I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important." - Rand Paul (Advice to Medical Students)

It's difficult for Rand Paul to claim the mantle of virtue when he is on the record, on video, extolling the benefits of and encouraging dishonest behaviors and then cite personal examples as evidence. Just what character does Paul have that needs to be defended.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It appears Paul has no character and therefore no character to defend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the 2016 Republican Frontrunner is.........Mitt Romney?

Here's an interesting poll:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Falling Back to Mitt?

In truth, I'm not especially surprised.

There is a reason for that.

When I opened this thread, I was mostly just laughing at the idea of Rep. King running for president; if the GOP wants to send him to the Show, they will be giving Democrats a gift even bigger than sending Romney against Obama, or that brutal and insane primary season that reminded just how unpopular Romney is in his own party.

And at the time, the talk of 2016 was eyeing Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie.

It honestly never occurred to me that all three would fall from grace by year's end.

Okay, in truth, Christie made it through the year, but the most part of December has been undone by January.

But even more surprising is the way in which they each burned out.

Sen. Cruz, the Texas freshman staged a coup d'état in the House of Representatives, lost the debt ceiling fight, and then retreated from his glorious role in that melodrama. He's still trying to make that everyone else's fault, especially Obama's, but that's no surprise.

Sen. Paul? Well, frankly, that's just ... inexplicable. A plagiarism scandal is tough enough, but his handling of it? It's not even farm league.

And Gov. Christie? I've never been a fan, but even when this story broke, it was unbelievable. Even as the story developed, and I got back from Hawai'i, about all I could could really say of the scandal was, "Is it fair to say that by the time the key players lawyer up, as such, we can start taking what should have been the silliest political conspiracy theory of the year seriously?" Even now, with the governor clearly in hot water and maybe being prepped for boiling oil, it's surreal. I mean, did anyone else catch Friday's morbid comedy? "Mr. Wildstein's lawyer confirms what the governor has said all along"? Just how does that work?

I think that after all else, that was the sign. Not only is Christie's presidential ambition reduced to ashes, I now have trouble conceiving that this won't end without him facing charges.

We'll have to see what team Wildstein actually has on Christie, of course, but this situation has already reached the disaster threshold, and it is hard to see Christie, even without charges, recovering in time for the 2016 election.

And really ... really, really, really ... I could not have guessed, when this thread opened, that all three would have crashed and burned before the 2014 midterm.

To the other, Romney is in the spotlight right now; the documentary is apparently both good and popular. But in that long string of "no" from the former presidential candidate, I do wonder if he was recalling the primary in which Republican voters finally settled on him after all their other candidates flamed out on the big stage. Really, it was anybody but Mitt until that notion became so obviously untenable. Congratulations, Mitt. You're our choice. After Michele, Rick, Herman, Newt, and Rick. And by the way, Ron's people are going to attempt to stage a coup against your nomination. In truth, I can't imagine why Romney would want to run as a Republican, since they show him such disrespect.

To the other, I'm not sure he should run. Whatever else Mitt's faults might be, we found out on election night that had some of the worst political hands in the game on his team.
____________________

Notes:

Aravosis, John. "Christie changes story on bridge closures, may have lied during 2 hour press conference". AmericaBlog. January 31, 2014. AmericaBlog.com. February 1, 2014. http://americablog.com/2014/01/new-statement-christie-changes-story-bridge-closures.html

 

I really can't see Romney running again. For one thing, he's older than he looks (66). I suppose I could imagine a scenario in which all the other potential nominees go down in flames creating a "draft Mitt" movement. In that kind of scenario, he would be spared the bruising primary fight that forces him to move right and damages him in the general election. So he might be tempted.

Still, I'd say that is fairly unlikely.

Who do you think will get the nomination? Seems like all the presumed contenders are damaged already. Rubio is damaged by his support for immigration reform. Paul has the plagiarism stuff. And Christie. Pfft. On the other hand, I don't think Cruz is as damaged as you think by the shut down fiasco. So I'd say he's probably still in the running.

But who else? Walker? Pence? Jindal?

 

The Problem With Now

Well, the good thing is that the GOP has a while to figure it out. Walker probably isn't viable with the crossover; his anti-union and anti-abortion stunts are stockpiled in the armory, waiting for the call. Pence is murmured as the dark horse candidate, but at this point that might make him the front-runner. The big question is whether he can capture a crossover vote, given his conservative bona fides. Then again, I'm not certain how much I trust the analysis of Daily Caller writers like Matt K. Lewis; that is, the logic is sound in its own right, but it's also reflective of "The Bubble". Having the backing of Club for Growth, Faith & Freedom Coalition, and the FRC Values Voters Summit might make for a good résumé in the primary, but the general election is a different question. Pence will have name recognition issues in the early going, but that also means the Democratic salvo will be loaded and ready.

Lewis' entire argument is great for why Pence can win the conservative endorsement for 2016, but if the dark horse becomes the Show horse, it's all for naught if he can't win the votes. To the other, Mitt Romney set a poor standard for distancing himself from former words, actions, and stances. There will be that, but he's going to have to answer for a lot of seemingly annoying issues from all sides in order to win. Keep an eye on the right flank this year; we might be getting a preview of the sectarian warfare inside the GOP come 2016.

Jindal, though, for obvious reasons, isn't the one. And it's not just the insanely awful SOTU response in 2009. Louisiana has, probably by coincidence, been one of the stranger political laboratories in recent years. The attacks from the Democrats will have some effect, but the real damage with purples and crossovers will comem when he answers his right wing. Whatever else he has going for him, Jindal has an unfortunate talent for making himself look silly.

And then there's Jeb Bush. Yes, really.

The travails of Chris Christie have predictably led to a round of speculation over who benefits most from the New Jersey governor's traffic problems.

Some say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Some say Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a fellow Republican.

Or Jeb Bush. An informal adviser to Bush said that the former Florida governor is "the prime beneficiary of Governor Christie's difficulties."

"A lot of the mover-shaker nodes in the party are now looking at Jeb as the potential alternative to Christie," said Alex Castellanos, a GOP consultant who talks regularly with Bush. He acknowledged that many in the GOP are "also taking a second look" at Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In other words, Bush is getting more nudges to run now that Christie is no longer the commanding political figure he was just a few months ago.

(Ward)​

This, I think, is where being part of a political dynasty will serve Jeb Bush well. That is to say, he knows better than to run.

Things will certainly look different come November, but the answer to whether or not Jeb Bush runs will be found in the political winds blowing after the midterm. Still, though, I'm not certain what necessity would justify a Jeb Bush run for president.

As Jon Ward noted:

Jeb Bush faces obvious challenges with his last name. His brother, former President George W. Bush, was very unpopular for much of his second term in office. The fact that their father was also president makes Jeb Bush too much of a legacy candidate for some voters.

But Bush is an attractive, predictable choice for other Republicans, particularly those from the establishment wing of the party and in wealthy donor circles. His experience as a governor of the biggest swing state is a huge plus. And he has carved out an issue set that appeals to the middle, with a focus on reforming education and fixing immigration.​

Attractive and predictable, indeed, because it's February, 2014. Mitt Romney was an attractive, predictable choice for the establishment wing, and the rank-and-file went nuts trying to find someone else.

I should also note that Halimah Abdullah's dreck for CNN raises exactly zero viable candidates; the article includes the idea of Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley on the Democratic side, but Mike Pence isn't anywhere in consideration for the Republicans.

All told, it's too early to give the question of who will run in 2016 any serious consideration. The way things are going, if we hop on the Rick Santorum or Jeb Bush bandwagons, the candidate will be caught molesting children with kittens for Satan. It's best to wait and see who's left standing in November and January. Any speculation coming before the midterm can only be correct by accident.
____________________

Notes:

Lewis, Matt K. "Pence and The Revolution: Five reasons he might be the 2016 dark horse to watch". The Daily Caller. September 10, 2013. DailyCaller.com. February 7, 2014. http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/10/p...ons-he-might-be-the-2016-dark-horse-to-watch/

Ward, Jon. "Chris Christie's Loss Could Be Jeb Bush's Gain". The Huffington Post. February 5, 2014. HuffingtonPost.com. February 7, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/jeb-bush-chris-christie_n_4733346.html

Abdullah, Halimah. "A more diverse slate of Republican presidential possibles". CNN Politics. February 6, 2014. CNN.com. February 7, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/politics/2016-republican-field/

 

That would be stopping too soon - keep going. Cross the North pole and still continue. I hear Putin is not very popular in Russia - might jump at the chance to be elected by ill-educated Americans.

Hell, Putin is a bare-chested, gun-toting, marshal-arts expert and hunter even the NRA would love and support. "Freedom, Liberty & Peace in out time thru Strength" is his campaign slogan. (with a sub text outside of the liberal zones of: "Jail the Queers." for extra red-neck votes. He does have a "hound dog" and pick-up truck, doesn't he?)

 

More action in the Romney camp:

 

I find it difficult to understand the Republican obsession with shrubs. The first shrub, George Bush Senior, wasn't a good president. He only became POTUS by riding Ronald Reagan’s coattails. He would have never been elected POTUS on his own. He lost his second term bid for office. The only thing remarkable about George Senior was that he broke his campaign promises in spectacular fashion.

George II, The Junior, has gone down in history as one of America’s worst POTUS. Junior lost the general election. He lost the popular vote and was only able to take the presidency because of unprecedented action taken by his Republican friends on the US Supreme Court and Republican induced election shenanigans. George II took a budget surplus and turned it into a record breaking deficit and debt and committed the nation and future presidents to mountains of debt. He entered into two wars and botched them both resulting in the longest wars in American history. He ran the economy into the ground, driving it to the brink of catastrophe, the likes of which have not been seen since The Great Depression.

And now Republicans want another Bush? I mean really…what is the Republican obsession with such an incompetent and lackluster family, a family totally devoid of presidential and leadership talent. But Republicans keep trying to make them POTUS. There really is only one thing the Bush dynasty has been good at - producing trust fund babies. I just don’t get it. Why are Republicans so infatuated and obsessed with the Bush dynasty? I mean, I could understand it if the Bush dynasty had produced at least one successful POTUS. But that isn’t the case.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Unfortunately George Junior’s pre-senile dementia began at birth. Pre-senile dementia doesn’t explain his lack of accomplishment, his failed business ventures. Were it not for his family’s influence and money, junior would not have been able to get into Yale or Harvard. Were it not for “gentlemen C’s” he would not have graduated. Were it not for his family’s influence, he would not have been able to get into the Texas National Guard. Were it not for George Junior’s family he would have been just another washed up drunk.

I just don’t understand the Republican fascination with the Bush dynasty. They just keep trying to pick the right shrub, as if one exists.

 

I thought he washed up as a neocon puppet after giving up the juice?

 

George Junior is washed up. But his brother Jeb, will likely run for POTUS in 2016. There is another movement afoot in republican circles to make Jeb Bush POTUS in 2016. They tried to get him to run in 2012. Like I said, I just don't get the republican infatuation with the shrub dynasty. If these republicans get their way that nation would have a Bush I, Bush II, Bush III, Bush IV, Bush V, etc.

 

On November 8, 2012, two days after that year's Election Day, Marco Rubio headed to Iowa, a kingmaker state for would-be Presidents. That's how early they've started to run. A couple decades ago, they would only start to run at the beginning of the election year or a few weeks before, so they can be the two earliest-primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

Republican possible candidates:

• Marco Rubio
• Rick Santorum
• Ben Carson
• Rand Paul
• Ted Cruz
• Scott Walker
• Peter King
• Donald Trump
• Mike Huckabee
• Chris Christie
• Jeb Bush
• Paul Ryan

Nobody on the Democratic side has declared him/herself or traveled to the aforementioned kingmaker state, but Hillary Clinton is usually considered the most likely one. I've seen mention of Brian Schweitzer and Andrew Cuomo and Elizabeth Warren, though the latter one seems content to be a Senator.

 

Dynastic Fantastic

Dynastic Fantastic?

To the one, it's Bob Shrum.

To the other, well, he kind of has a point.

And to the beeblebrox ... er ... yeah.

Let's just start with Shrum's point:

The GOP may have to return to the Bush leagues.

Here's why.

In presidential nominating contests, the Republican establishment has always won out—from the first Bush, to the tried but tired Dole, to W., then McCain, and most recently Romney, who nonetheless had to labor mightily to emerge from the weakest field of candidates in either party, ever. Really, Rick Santorum? Although casino mogul Sheldon Adelson's millions of misspent dollars propped him up, Romney, with even greater resources from the party's long-reigning plutocrats, ground Santorum down over time and along the way dispatched the unthinkable Newt Gingrich. The journey was excruciatingly long for the establishmentarians and cost them more than they ever anticipated. But in the end, they had their way.

And they weren't wrong. Sure, as the unskewed polls unraveled, Mr. 47 Percent lost—with just 47 percent of the popular vote. It was a fitting end; but any of the other GOP hopefuls, except for the forgotten and mortally moderate Jon Huntsman, would have turned in a far bleaker performance.​

Shrum goes on to eulogize pronounce the death of Chris Christie's presidential ambitions, suggests Sen. McCain would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Sen. Paul, dusts off Sen. Cruz, and sees Mike Huckabee as something of a disaster in waiting.

What a collection of men who will not be president; Republican grandees are looking at governors like Ohio's rumpled John Kasich and Wisconsin's union-busting Scott Walker—and looking again at Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan. But Kasich and Walker face competitive re-elections; their national presence is spectral, their national potential speculative. And Ryan would be confronted with the politically poisonous consequences of his Medicare-privatizing, education-slashing, childcare-cutting, and woman-bashing budget.

So inevitably the centripetal force of the establishment GOP will move toward Jeb Bush. He may not run—or he may spurn his mother's advice and plunge in. He says he will decide by the end of the year.​

What Shrum offers is a compelling case for establishment Republicans to embrace Jeb Bush. Whether or not the hardline right wing will put up with that sort of thing is unknown; Shrum calls him "the establishment's establishmentarian", notes his poor reception in New Hampshire resulting from his apparently insufficient hatred for hispanic migrants.

But it will still be a hard pitch to the general electorate; Shrum is counting on a dynastic contest:

What we don't know yet is whether Jeb has the stomach for this fight. Not long ago, I observed on television that he is likely to be most electable Republican. I received emails from angry progressives who inexplicably assumed that I was for him. In fact, I dislike what he did as governor in Florida—and for painful and obvious reasons, detest what he did during the 2000 election. But analytically, I'm convinced that he's the GOP's flawed best hope. Their perennial eminences know it, too. I'm also convinced that Clinton will prevail, but he won't make it easy.

In the primaries, Jeb Bush just might be drowned in a tidal wave of tea. If not, the 2016 election will be back to the future—Clinton versus Bush.

Democrats don't want anyone else. And Republicans—who the hell else they got?​

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but then again, it's Bob Shrum.

And while it almost seems as if his dissection of the situation is far too simplistic, I'm sympathetic to the gamble. But perhaps the so-called Shrum Curse is a result of that simplicity. The argument does not seem to account for much in the way of nuance among voters.

Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that Hillary Clinton won't run. After how many State of the Union Addresses, twenty? And after watching her husband and Barack Obama constantly frustrated by Republican vice, the logical argument suggests she can do much more for both the Democratic Party and the nation in general by playing the role of kingmaker. Or queenmaker; we'll have to see what the Democrats come up with over the next year.

Are the teams really so depleted for talent that they will send out a Clinton and Bush to square off one more time? It's not that one need disdain either of them specifically, but, rather, at what point are people going to get tired of the dynastic implications? One would be foolish to omit this point from their perception of her calculations; she is far too smart to overlook the detail. Whether or not her political team can cope with it is entirely another question, but there is no reason Hillary Clinton's team should be so blind as Mitt Romney's.
____________________

Notes:

Shrum, Robert. "Why the GOP Needs a Return to the Bush Leagues". The Daily Beast. April 21, 2014. TheDailyBeast.com. April 21, 2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/21/why-the-gop-needs-a-return-to-the-bush-leagues.html

 

If Jeb Bush runs I think he will be drowned in a tsunami of tea.

 

I don't believe this one minute and that is NOT the quote.

The Junior changed that saying on the spot from Shame on Me to Shame on You. Because, if he had been recorded saying 'Shame on Me', it'd been played on ads from here to eternity. So, he was obviously stupid enough to speak unscripted (something you won't find most other politicians too stupid to do - see: The Oblahma) but still clever enough to catch himself in mid-sentence and just make up something, anything, better than Shame on me.

As for wrecking the economy - it was Bill Clinton who deregulated the banks and Alan Greenf*ck who started a housing bubble to 'recover' from the tech bubble collapse. Americans are by and large a bunch of simpleton dolts and so are our Political "Leaders" - but that doesn't matter. Government can not fix anything - let alone the economy. It's our fault we have a Centrally Planned economy with a Central Bank full of Central Planners using Fiat currency. Fascism is our fault, not that of anyone else. We're the ones who support and want a fascistic centrally planned economy. It's in our nature at this stage in the cycle.

The British Historian Sir John Bagot Glubb suggested there were 7 stages to Empire each with different cultural social norms.

1. The age of outburst.
2. The age of conquests.
3. The age of commerce.
4. The age of affluence.
5. The age of intellect.
6. The age of decadence. (we could refer to this as the Age of the BabyBoomer)
7. The age of decline and collapse.

My guess is we're transitioning from #6 to #7.

All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
- Declaration of Independence

It's Political Leaders now, not Political Servants - Leaders. And, my guess is, over a hundred years ago, most Americans could probably recite that line from the Declaration of Independence. Not now. I bet if you asked most Americans today - they wouldn't know where it came from and if told, wouldn't have a clue as to the chief author, let alone agree with him on anything important. So, we won't be getting rid of central banks or income tax or central planning or the Patriot Act or spying on Americans or 'winding down the wars' or any return of civil liberties any time too soon. Not in your lifetime.

Americans by and large now hate personal freedom - and that's a fitting social norm with this stage in the cycle. I'd say even 'natural'.

As an aside, a hundred years ago, you needed to know how to read before you were allowed to attend public school.
Today, many public schools graduate functional illiterates.


What's the solution? IMO what we need to do is elect and then re-elect Elizabeth Warren. And we need as many Social "Progressives" as possible to be elected into Congress. And this has to happen for years and years - maybe even decades with more radial socialism to follow. Meaningless slogans like Social Justice and Social Fairness have come to be the norm and most Americans now believe that Government force, and only Government force, is the means to deliver on these lofty goals - and if not, then I'd say it's nearing normality. One day, far off into the future, when we're poor enough - and have lost enough civil liberties, maybe then a few Americans will stop and think about and take the idea of a limited government seriously - for pragmatic reasons. At such a time, we'll probably be too broke to afford our own idiocy - then change comes. As for now ... there's no not going through #7.

If you doubt that, just speak with a functionally illiterate "high" school graduate... you can choose the topic.

 

Surgical Bombing

Rand and the Strand

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

We have heard before various partisan complaints about a principle known as the water's edge. That is to say, you leave certain domestic complaints alone when you travel abroad:

"Politics stops at the water's edge." ―Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, R-MI​

So much for that. I can remember a time in 2004 when Republicans could find time enough to listen to what Johnny Freakin' Depp was saying in France in order to complain about the water's edge.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told the Guatemalan president the surge of child immigrants flooding the U.S. border this year is a result of President Obama’s policies, not problems in Central America.

"I told him, frankly, that I didn't think the problem was in Guatemala City, but that the problem was in the White House in our country, and that the mess we've got at the border is frankly because of the White House's policies," Paul told Brietbart News in an article published Thursday.

Paul sat down with President Otto Pérez Molina for 45 minutes during his humanitarian visit to the country to conduct eye surgery. The potential GOP presidential candidate was a practicing ophthalmologist before entering the Senate.

Paul said the two mostly discussed the senator's humanitarian visit but that he was happy to answer political questions that came up in the meeting.

"But I think what's happened at the border is all squarely at the president's lap," Paul said. "The problem and the solution aren't in Guatemala. The problem and solution reside inside the White House."

(Trujillo)​

Definitely not cool.

While many would take issue with the idea of simply ignoring the question of economic and social justice motivations for Central American immigrants, the junior senator from Kentucky has simply lost it. In the first place, you just don't do that. In the second, this is apparently part of what Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post described as a "stage-managed political voyage" that "exposed logistical shortcomings by its organizers" that included some photo-op ophthalmological work and, of course, some spitballs lobbed back toward the water's edge from abroad. And even if this wasn't a particularly vile episode, we can say that it is controversial enough that ... oh, right. These are Republicans, who have special exemption from such customs of dignity and decency.
____________________

Notes:

Trujillo, Mario. "In Guatemala, Paul blames Obama for migrant surge". The Hill. August 22, 2014. TheHill.com. August 23, 2014. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...riticizes-white-house-during-guatemalan-visit

United States Senate. "Arthur Vandenberg: A Featured Biography". (n.d.) Senate.gov. August 23, 2014. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Featured_Bio_Vandenberg.htm

O'Keefe, Ed. "With an eye on 2016, Rand Paul takes his campaign-in-waiting to the operating room". The Washington Post. August 21, 2014. WashingtonPost.com. August 23, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...389066-2932-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

Greenwald, Glenn. "Mike Huckabee bashes America on foreign soil". Salon. August 17, 2009. Salon.com. August 23, 2013. http://www.salon.com/2009/08/17/huckabee_35/